Oneida County Board of Adjustment rules boathouse's folding doors qualify as patio doors, disallows them

The Oneida County Board of Adjustment voted 4–1 on April 30, 2026, to uphold the Planning & Zoning Department’s determination that folding "window wall" doors installed on a boathouse at 7724 Wheeler Island Road in the Town of Three Lakes constitute patio doors and are not permissible for the structure.

The board took the decision following a public hearing, testimony from the appellant’s builder and agent, an onsite inspection, and legal argument. Chair Guy Hansen moved to "uphold the county’s position that the doors installed meet the county’s interpretation for use and appearance of a patio door and the doors be disallowed." Brad Herrold seconded the motion; the vote was Yes — Jeff Viegut, Dan Chronister, Brad Herrold and Guy Hansen; No — Jeff Verdoorn. The motion carried.

The appeal (Appeal No. 25-009) was brought by the Totzke Family Revocable Trust, owner Rich Totzke, with attorney Shane VanderWaal as agent, challenging the Planning & Zoning Department’s administrative position requiring correction of patio doors installed on a boathouse built under zoning permit #2401268.

At the hearing, contractor Steve Madl described the installed system as an Anderson-brand folding/window-wall design, explained its track system, and said the door’s weight is supported by a top header beam and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and steel components. Atty. VanderWaal submitted construction plans the appellant said matched the installed work and provided an affidavit from Kurt Schmidt of REI Engineering stating a prior REI rendering used for environmental review was not the submitted construction plan.

Darin Pagel, Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator for the City of Merrill, told the board that "when code does not provide a definition of a word, the use of dictionary definition is standard," and offered a Merriam-Webster printout defining "patio door." Pagel testified that, on his reading, the specific Anderson product differs from a typical patio door and that the installed door was consistent with the construction plans the appellant submitted.

Corporation Counsel Atty. Chad Lynch and Planning & Zoning staff maintained the county’s position that the installed doors "push the limit toward patio doors" and are inconsistent with the type of door permitted for boathouse construction under the county’s shoreland zoning interpretation. Karl Jennrich, Director of Planning & Zoning, told the board the only issue before them was whether the doors installed meet the county’s interpretation of a patio door and therefore whether they were permissible for a boathouse.

After deliberation focused on features that distinguish patio doors from other door systems and on what the board was being asked to decide, the board voted to uphold the county’s determination and disallow the doors. The board’s onsite inspection earlier the same morning included the owner, agent, contractor, county planning staff and other officials; Secretary Jeff Viegut reported that property markers and ordinary high water mark were not marked but said those facts were not relative to the board’s findings.

The board concluded the hearing by recording its vote and adjourned at 12:30 p.m. The order issued by the board, any timeline for compliance, and possible next steps by the appellant were not specified in the hearing minutes.